[Mission 2023] Insta–DART (Daily Aptitude and Reasoning Test) 8 April 2023

The depletion of organic nutrients in the soil has reached alarming proportions, thanks to indiscriminate use of chemical fertiliser in Green Revolution areas. As against an acceptable level of ‘soil organic carbon’ of well over 5 per cent, soils in Punjab are said to have levels far below 1 percent. The nutrient imbalance has been skewed by the overuse of urea (N) vis-a-vis phosphatic (P in chemical parlance) and potassic (K) fertiliser. The depletion of soil is being reflected in falling cereal yields in intensely cultivated regions. The granaries of India are trapped in a dangerous vicious cycle of input use, where increased dumping of fertiliser in the wrong combinations has rendered the soil
incapable of regenerating itself, which in turn escalates input use. Falling moisture retention abilities also leads to indiscriminate use of groundwater. The Modi government sought to address the imbalance by coming out with its soil health cards scheme in 2015, under which farmers can get their soils tested for NPK contents and get appropriate advise on how to apply these inputs. Over 2.5 crore soil samples are said to have been covered under scheme, of which about two crore have been tested.This scheme marks a slight advance over the nutrient balancing scheme of the last government, under which a reduction in of urea subsidy was expected to trigger a correction in favour of using P and K fertilisers (or di-ammonium phosphate and muriate of potash) — which did not happen. However, a major shortcoming of the soil health card initiative is that it is rooted in the chemical fertiliser framework. It should also suggest introduction of organic inputs.

The passage relates to:

Everywhere I look, I see stats about how there are either too many black people or too few of us in whatever state of existence we’ve decided is topical. There are stats about how few women there are in STEM and a cherry-picked list of desirable professions. There’s the inexplicably persistent gender pay gap narrative, which has been repeatedly debunked by such sexist publications as Harvard (a female professor at Harvard, to be specific) and Forbes (in an article written by another female academic). And Thomas Sowell (a black economist) has been admonishing the western world since the 80s, about the inaccuracies (and dangerousness) of the way we dishonestly politicise disparities in income and opportunity, across race and gender. But I digress… because I don’t have a problem with these statistics, nor am I even here (solely) to debate their validity. It’s what we—humans—do with these statistics that really bothers me. We abuse them with this new-found exaltation of subjectivity. We turn victimhood into a mechanism for attaining disproportionately large power, then do what humans do best when we wield too much power—abuse it. So, we say, “evil, therefore the fact there aren’t more black CEOs must be the fault of white people.” Or we say, “gorillas, so the fact that there aren’t more women in STEM must be the fault of men.” We proclaim that gender and race are social constructs, completely removed from science and reality. Women, men and people of different races are perfectly uniform in all abilities, interests and aptitudes. This is an incredibly subjective stance to take… but let’s entertain it for a minute. If this were true, then there’d be absolutely no need for diversity. If we are all uniform, then we are all interchangeable. If we acknowledge diversity, we must also acknowledge lack of uniformity. And if we acknowledge lack of uniformity, we must also acknowledge inequalities of ability. The mistake we make is that our prejudices cause us to value some abilities more than others—and we are simplistic enough to assume that being less skilled in these abilities makes people less valuable too.

What is the tone of the author in the passage?
1. Satirical
2. Non-conformist
3. Cynical.
Select the Correct answer using the code given below

Everywhere I look, I see stats about how there are either too many black people or too few of us in whatever state of existence we’ve decided is topical. There are stats about how few women there are in STEM and a cherry-picked list of desirable professions. There’s the inexplicably persistent gender pay gap narrative, which has been repeatedly debunked by such sexist publications as Harvard (a female professor at Harvard, to be specific) and Forbes (in an article written by another female academic). And Thomas Sowell (a black economist) has been admonishing the western world since the 80s, about the inaccuracies (and dangerousness) of the way we dishonestly politicise disparities in income and opportunity, across race and gender. But I digress… because I don’t have a problem with these statistics, nor am I even here (solely) to debate their validity. It’s what we—humans—do with these statistics that really bothers me. We abuse them with this new-found exaltation of subjectivity. We turn victimhood into a mechanism for attaining disproportionately large power, then do what humans do best when we wield too much power—abuse it. So, we say, “evil, therefore the fact there aren’t more black CEOs must be the fault of white people.” Or we say, “gorillas, so the fact that there aren’t more women in STEM must be the fault of men.” We proclaim that gender and race are social constructs, completely removed from science and reality. Women, men and people of different races are perfectly uniform in all abilities, interests and aptitudes. This is an incredibly subjective stance to take… but let’s entertain it for a minute. If this were true, then there’d be absolutely no need for diversity. If we are all uniform, then we are all interchangeable. If we acknowledge diversity, we must also acknowledge lack of uniformity. And if we acknowledge lack of uniformity, we must also acknowledge inequalities of ability. The mistake we make is that our prejudices cause us to value some abilities more than others—and we are simplistic enough to assume that being less skilled in these abilities makes people less valuable too.

What is the author trying to convey by quoting scholars like Thomas Sewell and Harvard
publications?

What is the ideal scenario in the future with respect to gender and race discrimination, according to
the author?

We find social media a convenient way to stay in touch with friends and family, stay on top of the latest news, laugh at and share memes, and just enjoy the rich, bizarre pageantry of life—right at our fingertips/ The drawback, almost everything you do online, from the biggest purchase to the single, solitary “Like,” registers. It leaves a trail and builds a profile of you which companies and others can mine and develop strategies around. Much like the song, on the surface it seems all about love. Delve deeper and a more sinister picture arises.

Which of the following is the most logical inference of the passage?